gupfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Panther/@comment-35490388-20180506113113/@comment-26283357-20180506172708
I suggest you get some actual solid books on German armor, preferably written by Jentz or Doyle as some of the things you say is just nonsense and is not supported, even contradicted, by the actual German documents. The reason why the engine on the Tiger isn't getting the desired power has nothing to do with the company not working on armored vehicles, a claim that is nonsensical as the Maybach engines used in the German tanks are specifically designed to be mounted in tanks, this comes directly from the archives. The issues lies in that engine was rushed into production without all the bugs being worked out, much like an armored vehicle, it takes several years to work out the bugs in an engine during those days. Even the US with its advanced automotive industry was having issues with their Ford GAA and GAF engines, the same applies to the V-2 as used on Russian tanks. The "best" of the US tank engines was the Ford GAA, a modified aircraft engine which became the preferred standard for the US Army. But it only had a maximum power output of about 500 horsepower, which was insufficient when the decision was made to up armor the US second generation tank, the T25, creating the T26 Pershing. The Pershing in some ways had even more problems than the German tanks, since its power plant simple could not produce sufficient power or torque to move its bulk. Engine failures and engine related transmission failures plagued it until 1948, when the first real purpose designed US tank engine was produced (note the similar timelines - the Germans began tank engine development and had the Maybach line pretty much at its peak of development by 1942-1943, about seven years of development - the US development began seriously in 1941 and bore fruit in 1948, after about seven years). Because of the tight engine compartment and other technical limitations it was impossible to install a physically larger, more powerful motor. As a result the original engines displacement was increased by replacing the aluminum cylinder block with a cast iron block and boring it out to 23.88 liters (1457 cubic inches). This increased the weight of the motor but also increased the rigidity. And despite all of this, the Tiger I was still faster and more maneuverable than any other heavy tank at that time. And really, making the claim that the Panther's suspension would break after a rainy day, pure hogwash. Same kind of nonsense I see people claiming that frozen mud would keep a Panther from moving, yeah good luck with that with a tank when it goes into first gear. The suspension on the Panther was surprisingly tough, and it was anything but useless as it was remarkably well in dampening the rocking motion of the tank when going across rough ground, a feat that was not equaled by suspension designs of other nations until the 60s. It also allowed for a very low ground pressure and an excellent floatation figure which enabled the Panther to cross obstacles that, bar a select other, would find themselves stuck. The engine breakdowns are not prominent when the Germans are able to retain the initiate and can give the vehicles their preventative maintenance which for tanks of that period was an almost daily requirement, even the much vaunted Sherman needed this in order to keep on functioning or otherwise you would see an 80% loss of strength after doing a simple 50km road march as happened to several US tank battalions in late 1944. Even for the Panther engine breakdowns barely register, it’s the final drives that are the main cause of vehicle breakdowns, not the engines, when the strategic situation turns against the Germans and the tanks are used as fire brigades as they rush from one sector of the front to another, often with the much needed maintenance that is required for a complicated vehicle like a tank. This was further aggravated by a declining quality of drivers who would keep on driving with a minor issue when it should have gone for maintenance. Even today's modern tanks need a day in the maintenance bay after just 3 to 4 days of action. German tanks were pretty bad? Right....... Ever had a good look at the dreadful loss rate and breakdowns that the Russians suffered in 1941 and '42 where entire tanks units simply disappeared after a trying to cross a modest distance. T-34s carried an additional transmission unit strapped to their engines decks for when the inevitable transmission would break.